Cross-

Summary:On August 25, 2005, high velocity winds generated from Hurricane Katrina produced large amounts of vegetative debris throughout the Village of Key Biscayne.The Applicant entered into a time-and-materials (T&M) contract with All Florida Tree and Landscape, Inc. from August 26 through September 27, 2005, to remove hazardous trees, tree limbs, and stumps within its jurisdiction.FEMA prepared

PW 385 in the amount of $208,522 to document the contract costs.During project closeout, FEMA determined that the work performed under the T&M contract extended beyond the initial 70-hour period that FEMA allows for emergency debris clearance and that the contract equipment rates were unreasonably high when compared to established FEMA equipment rates for applicant owned equipment.FEMA allowed the contractor equipment rates for the first 70-hours of emergency debris clearance and adjusted the rates to match FEMA equipment rates for the remainder of the contract.This resulted in a reduction of $37,817 with adjusted total funding of $170,705.

In its first appeal dated March 26, 2010, the Applicant requested that FEMA reinstate debris removal costs in the amount of $37,817.The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal and deobligated the previous funded amount of $170,705 because the Applicant did not comply with Federal procurement regulations.The Regional Administrator also stated that the Applicant did not provide documentation to establish that the removal of hanging limbs, leaning trees, and stumps was necessary to eliminate immediate threats to life, public health, and safety, or significant damage to improved public or private property.

The State transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal on September 20, 2011, which requests that FEMA reconsider its decision to withdraw funding in the amount of $208,522.The Applicant argues that it is in compliance with Federal procurement requirements and that the debris posed immediate threats to life, public health and safety, as well as to improved public and private property.

Issues:1) Did the Applicant follow Federal procurement requirements

2) Did the Applicant provide sufficient documentation to support its claim for reimbursement?

3) Did the State transmit the appeal within the regulatory time limit?